The defendant is charged [in count __]
with breach of the peace in the second degree. The statute defining this
offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of breach of the
peace when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person engages in fighting or in
violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place.

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:

Element 1 - IntentThe first element is that the
defendant

acted with the
intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. The predominant intent must
be to cause what a reasonable person operating under contemporary community
standards would consider a disturbance to or impediment of a lawful activity, a
deep feeling of vexation or provocation, or a feeling of anxiety prompted by
threatened danger or harm. <See
Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

recklessly created
a risk of causing inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. A person acts "recklessly"
with respect to a result or circumstances when (he/she) is aware of and
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result
will occur or that such circumstances exist. <See
Recklessness, Instruction 2.3-4.>

The words "inconvenience, annoyance or
alarm" refer to what a reasonable person operating under contemporary community
standards would consider a disturbance to or impediment of a lawful activity, a
deep feeling of vexation or provocation, or a feeling of anxiety prompted by
threatened danger or harm.1

Element 2 - ConductThe second element is that the
defendant engaged in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior
that actually involved physical violence or portended imminent physical
violence.2
The defendant's conduct must be more than a display of mere bad manners. It
must cause or create a risk of causing inconvenience, annoyance or alarm among
members of the public.

[<If appropriate:> The
defendant's speech, absent actual physical conduct, may constitute the
prohibited behavior when it can be identified as "fighting words," which is
speech that has a direct tendency to cause imminent acts of violence or portends
violence. Such speech must be of such a nature that it is likely to provoke the
average person to retaliation.3]

Element 3 - Public PlaceThe third element is that the conduct
took place in a public place. "Public place" means any area that is used or
held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private
interests.4

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 1) (intended to cause / recklessly
created a risk of causing) inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, 2) <describe
conduct>, and 3) it was in a public place.

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of breach
of peace in the second degree, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the
other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not
guilty.
_______________________________________________________

1
The Supreme Court applied this interpretive gloss to the mens rea language of
the disorderly conduct statute in State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795,
810-811 (1994). In State v. Wolff, 237 Conn. 633, 670 (1996), the Court
applied it to the breach of peace statute. See the discussion of intent in the
Introduction
to this section.